The syntax of the lines I've underlined is driving me nuts, in particular, the exact syntax of [face=spionic]to\n ei)=xe[/face]. At the moment I assume it is a relative clause, mostly because I can't work it in otherwise.

"I did not want to kill (him)
But I saw (him) like a statue,
and not bearing (not able to bear) the burning desire,
his thigh, which he had naked,I was mad to kiss."

Oh, it's not the pronoun that upsets me - Homer does this all the time - but the wild syntax. A relative phrase separating a noun and its adjective? I know poets have license, but line 30 seems extreme.

Hmm... I'm not too sure wether philasai belongs to meron, as philasai meaning kissing is normally with the dative (though of course it could be different in this dialect); philasai tw| stomati
With the accusative it often means: do something gladly or just normally or gladly.
mainomai with accusative means to hunger for something.
Could ton be the young man?
Naked that (guy) had his thigh (and) I gladly hungered for it?
or as a relavtive clause:
I gladly hungered for his thigh, which he had naked.
or
I gladly hungered for his naked thigh, which he had.

I think that we have here a prolepsis : the adjective [face=SPIonic]gumno\n[/face] is part of the relative phrase where it is complement of the direct object [face=SPIonic]to/n[/face]. The relative phrase in turn is put before the antecedent. In my mind, the syntax is :

I'm starting to get the feeling that the Bucolic poets enjoyed this sort of thing. The Dioscouri example doesn't bother me so much, since even Homer does that from time to time. I had thought about the possibility that the [face=spionic]e)maino/man fila=sai mhro/n, to\n ei)=xe gumno/n[/face] reading was correct, but tended to dismiss it at first. I agree now that it's the best interpretation.